US v. Brooks: "No Harm, No Foul"

CAAF today released a new opinion, United States v. Brooks, addressing a somewhat novel set of facts: the appellant complained that while he was incarcerated post-trial, confinement personnel eavesdropped on his conversations with appellate counsel and intercepted his mail.

Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Stucky ruled that even if true, the appellant failed to show prejudice: "Appellant has not cited, and the record fails to establish ... what issues he wanted to raise before the NMCCA but was unable to do so because of the chilling effect the brig officials’ actions had on his attorney-client communications." In the absence of such evidence, the court concluded, the appellant was due no relief.

Judge Stucky cautioned, however, that the decision should not be treated as a blank check for confinee monitoring: "a case in which an appellant can articulate particularized prejudice (let alone one in which the fruits of such eavesdropping were used at trial) would raise far more acute issues."